Re: RFC 1036 Revision: Replaces/Supersedes/Xref Headers
Brad Templeton <brad <at> templetons.com>
2000-03-01 08:50:15 GMT
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 08:35:24AM +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Brad" == Brad Templeton <brad <at> templetons.com> writes:
> >> The requirement that given an existing (unversioned) message-id
> >> <foo <at> bar>, that it be possible to update that (whether by adding a
> >> duplicate entry or by other means) to refer to a different article.
> >> (The arrival of article <foo$n=2$xxx <at> bar> changes the result of doing
> >> a lookup of <foo <at> bar>.)
> Brad> Well, not if one does replace with the same article number,
> Article numbers don't have anything to do with it. My history file,
> like that of most current servers, is a mapping from message-id-digest
> to storage-location; the storage location has no relationship to the
> group or article number. I don't even store the actual message-id in
> the history.
Yes, but is it not the case that you have the ability to store a pointer
of some kind, any kind at the storage location? If you do, then it
becomes easy to do the indirection. You certainly have to have the
ability to say "This article is no longer here" and wherever you say
that you probably have an ability to store a pointer saying, "and here
is where you can now find it."
But even if you don't, all I point out is that all you really need
is the ability to say "It's gone now" (Which is required by existing
rules) and the ability to somehow, somewhere, in some small database,
look up where it's gone.
> Brad> message ID of since-replaced articles will not be as far as I